I work as a screenwriter for film & TV. In a former life I was a media specialist & campaign ad writer. Follow me on Twitter @MarkHughesFilms; add me on Google+; and read my question and answers about film, comics, and more on Quora.

The Hobbit is a big, bold, beautiful triumph on every level, standing squarely on its own two feet rather than attempting to mimic the style and voice of its predecessors. It is easily one of the year’s best films, and should be a sure nominee for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, and Best Editing (Film and Sound).

I believe this newest movie is even better than The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, and that’s saying quite a lot, obviously. And contrary to many of the glaringly wrongheaded reviews and assertions I’ve heard from some critics, this film is in fact more accessible to mainstream “non-fanboy” audiences. It is faster paced, there is less lingering on nuances of backstory and world-building details (those things are present, but their telling is remarkably economical and seem to breeze past), the characters are easier to remember and distinguish, and it’s a whole lot funnier. That’s right, I said funnier, and I’ll get to that shortly.

Visually, the film really sets itself apart from the previous trilogy. Just as the storytelling is more lighthearted and brisk, so too is the imagery, filled with rich, bright colors and textures while settling into rhythms of wide shots to close-ups, sweeping back and forth, and lots of swooping in and around complex sets and scenery.

The Lord of the Rings, while often reflecting Jackson‘s preference for approaching scenes from different angles and perspectives, still also utilized a lot of “epic” filmmaking choices for setting up shots and sequencing for a lot of key action and establishing shots, and always maintained a certain awareness of its own ambition and history-making status.

But The Hobbit feels fearless and devoid of self-consciousness about expectations or anything other than excitement at telling its story, and at times almost seems to avoid any obvious choices or traditional perspectives in the approach to action and big reveals. Scene after scene, it’s obvious Jackson decided what he thought would be an awesome way for the action to proceed and to look, and then just figured out how to make that happen, no matter how crazy or complicated it might be.

One major aspect of the visual style of this film is the much-debated 48 frames per second. I’ve heard some reviewers claim it looks like a cheap BBC televised production, but that’s utter nonsense. It looked glorious, a level of detail and clarity that enhanced the colors and texture and movements of every scene. It’s akin to the difference between watching a DVD on a regular television, and a Blu-ray on a flat screen HDTV.

When the movie begins, for a couple of minutes the difference in fluidity of movement, the precision of details and depth, is striking. But very quickly your eyes adapt, and the effect is breathtaking.

A big advantage to the new frame rate is that action scenes, even very fast paced sequences full of quick edits and (in one scene) literally hundreds of characters going in every direction, are never hard to follow or blurred by movement. It’s so crisp and clear that you can take it all in and understand what’s going on despite the scale of some of these sequences. Likewise, this means the 3D effect never lacks clarity or blurs from movement, and the result is a 3D depth into the scenery that is perfect throughout. A moment to comment on that — The Hobbit is one of those films that uses 3D to create a sense of space and weight to scenes, delving into the screen rather than just trying to project items out at the audience.

The Hobbit relies on a lot of CGI, and this too benefits from the 48 fps, adding to the film’s unique visual style. The finest moments of these effects come in three particular sequences: the trolls, the goblins, and the inevitable appearance of Gollum. The most lavish of these involves the goblins and their underground lair teeming with hundreds of the creatures in a complicated labyrinth full of so much detail you could watch it several times and keep finding something new happening in some corner in the background. It is a gorgeous spectacle and Jackson here demonstrates his most elaborate choices for shots and action.

But it is Gollum who truly defines the brilliance of the CGI advances on display in the movie. However great you thought Gollum was previously — and he was indeed — you will be in awe of him here. Andy Serkis needs an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor, it’s time for the Academy to cross that nominating threshold and this is the performance to do it. Every CGI character in the film is fully articulated, including flawless mouth movements and lip-syncing that is completely naturalistic. Gollum, however, is in a league all by himself, as real as he could be, the true test of which is that rather than marvel at how realistic he looks and acts and moves, you will simply forget you’re watching CGI.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I really want to believe that this review got it right. As a major Tolkien and Jackson fan, I am rooting for this movie to do well. However, I think it might be a little harsh to say other reviewers have been bandwagoning. I think they had honest opinions…and to be honest I haven’t seen any reviews that said the film was less than entertaining.

Anyways, your review gives me a little relief, which I think was much needed. I have a feeling that to the average viewer, Hobbit will probably fall somewhere short of the Lord of the Rings, simply because it isn’t as new this time around. But I think its good the world feels more familiar to people than it did in 2003.

I think I will go into the film with a cautiously optimistic approach. That way hopefully it will exceed my expectations.

Thank you!!!! I saw it at a midnight premiere last night, and while I didn’t think it perfect, I thought it pretty close! I haven’t enjoyed a film this much in 9 years, and I can’t wait till next year! I’ve just about had enough of overly negative reviews, and thrashing of a film that haven’t even come out yet! Thank you again!

Only fairly recently have I begun to fully appreciate all that went into the making of the original LoTR trilogy, having watched all the appendices on the extended DVDs for what seemed like the first time (even though I’ve owned them for 10 years!) as well as the entire Hobbit production video blog.

Once I had gained this insight into Jackson’s mind and way of doing things, as well as the abilities of the crew at Weta, reading all the early reviews of the Hobbit gave this oddly dissonant feeling – it didn’t add up. At all. After having gone through a few of them, I noticed many patterns in their criticisms such as mentioning the “daytime soap effect”, a phenomenon I can’t say I’ve ever heard of anywhere. It is obvious that just as you say, they are aping each other’s critiques in a poor attempt to appear as though their opinions matter in many cases, rather than using their own brains to reflect honestly on the film.

Thank god I’m not the only one thinking the HFR was great! Seriously, I was expecting it to be awful ’cause the critics completely HATED it! And as I was sitting in the cinema watching The Hobbit I was thinking “Wow!” and yeah, I still don’t get why they don’t like it. I believe it is the future of 3D cinema!

Nice review and good thought process behind why some people “wanted” to dislike this film and 3D technology. This type of “pack” mentality seems to be getting worse.

I recently wrote about why I think the PS Vita still has a fighting chance (which it does) because I am tired of the “pack” mentality. So much trashing of a superior product that in the end only hurts the people who love playing video games.

I feel the same way about 3D. Today’s high-def 3D is absolutely amazing, especially at home. Yet so many people pretend it gives them headaches, they don’t like wearing glasses, can’t stand the “gimmicky” effects of stuff coming out at the screen. If someone throws a baseball at your face, you know, in real life 3D, is that a gimmick?

These are the same people who fancy themselves “real” cinephiles and think real film is shot only on 35mm or something. So I guess that “record” they just listened to off “CD” or “MP3″ isn’t legit? Not REAL music?

There were definitely very good moments, but the pace was terrible. To fast and to slow. The table scenes never seemed to stop.

The magic and the deep symbolism were gone. The charactars were amazingly flat. The depth of the Elves… gone.

This whole movie kills every beautiful character of LOTR making them tedious flat and ridiculous. Except for Bilbo. He was great. Lifting lots of scenes.

Gollem and Bilbao was on itself worth an award. It was amazingly good.

But the film as a whole is one big insult to its predecessor(s) and its audience.

Of course it does not have to be LOTR, but please, why kill of Gandalfs character to below zero, and make burping dwarfs something that one should be watching?

I blame Jackson by loosing himself into 48p and 3d. And not taking care of consolidating the deep magic feel that Middle Earth is.

Of course the Hobbit is a very weak story. written for children. But you have to make a big choice when you make this movie. Will it be a story for children, or will it contain the depth and glory of LOTR.

Peter Jackson did not make that choice and is making a fool of LOTR and degrading his art. He should have known not a LOT better.

Sorry, I disagree with the whole “The Hobbit is a weak children’s story” rubbish that I have been hearing and reading from people. The Hobbit tells of someone coming to grips with going outside of themselves and daring to try something, not knowing or being assured of success. It also is the foundation and sets the scene for the entire Lord of the Rings chronicle.

Bravo, very true. While the story in “The Hobbit” is obviously more fanciful and reflects more fairy tale tone, it has wonderfully meaningful and deep narrative lines and arcs.

And of course, this being an adaptation that’s part of a larger body of cinematic work attempting to adapt the whole Tolkien “world,” the attempts to create a bit more tonal consistency and blend the works into a fitting collection reflecting one large world and series of events and adventures are all quite valid. I suspect some folks also don’t realize that this trilogy of films will not just be limited to “The Hobbit” book itself, and is in fact incorporating “other elements” from other sources, particularly the third film… ;)